9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed a complaint before the Central Information Commission under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, seeking imposition of penalty against the said CPIO under Section 20 of the Act. In the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner clearly stated that he had filed a separate appeal under Section 19 of the Act before the First Appellate Authority and in the complaint he was seeking action against the CPIO since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIC v. State of Manipur & Ors. [2012 (286) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.)] had held that the procedure contemplated under Section 18 of the Act was altogether different from the procedure contemplated under Section 19 of the Act and, therefore, the Commission has no power, while dealing with a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cess to information within the time limits specified under the Act. It is, therefore, obligatory for the Commission to decide such a complaint on merit instead of simply directing the CPIO to provide information which the complainant had sought. If the Commission finds that the CPIO had without reasonable cause refused to receive an application for information or had not furnished information within the prescribed time or had given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, it is required to impose prescribed penalty upon such a CPIO/SPIO, as the case may be. In the cases covered by sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the Commission is also required to recommend disciplinary action against the concerned CPIO or SPIO, under the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; (c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act; (d) reject the application." 4. The scope of the powers of the Commission under Section 18 of the Act came up for consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur - 2012 (286) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.). Appellant No. 2 in the aforesaid case filed an application dated 9-2-2007 seeking certain information from the State Information Officer. Since no response was received, he preferred a complaint before the State Chief Information Commissioner under Section 18 of the Act. The said State Chief Information Commissioner directed Respondent No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant. 29. If we look at Section 18 of the Act it appears that the powers under Section 18 have been categorized under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1). Under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1) of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may receive and inquire into complaint of any person who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act (Section 18(1)(b)) or has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under the Act (Section 18(1)(e)) or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of the Information Officer was not bona fide. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other. 38. It may be that sometime in statute words are used by way of abundant caution. The same is not the position here. Here a completely different procedure has been enacted under Section 19. If the interpretation advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondent is accepted in that case Section 19 will become unworkable and especially Section 19(8) will be rendered a surp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidering a complaint made under Section 18 of the Act, the Commission cannot direct the concerned CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought from him. Such a power can only be exercised when a Second Appeal in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 19 is preferred before the Commissioner. 6. As noted earlier, in his complaint, the complainant had specifically referred to the above referred order of the Apex Court and had also drawn the attention of the Commission to the legal proposition, as enunciated in the above referred decision. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Commission either did not at all advert to the above referred decision or for the reasons which cannot be gathered from the order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
